Despite moves by the Bar Council over the last year to combat bullying and sexual harassment, more than half (55%) of the 1,500 barristers questioned said the problems have not gone away. Respondents to the survey conducted in October and November said that bullying is rife in the judiciary and that lawyers continue to be harassed and propositioned by senior colleagues.

The report in The Times stated that one barrister said: ‘Judicial bullying remains alive and well, particularly if you are counsel appearing from outside of the judge’s and the other barrister’s patch. I’ve been referred to as “legs” by a male barrister, I’ve had it suggested that compliments given by a QC about my advocacy while I was a junior barrister were only given “because he wanted to get into my knickers”.’

Another said: ‘Look at how appalling some judges are to advocates and it doesn’t surprise me at all that advocates replicate this behaviour to each other. While so few judicial bullying complaints are upheld, the problem will never be addressed.’

While a further reported: ‘The stench of testosterone is overwhelming at the criminal Bar and that odour is getting stronger given the lack of diversity. Only better funding will attract a bigger pool of talent and help retain the few women.’

Commenting on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour, Bar Vice Chair Amanda Pinto QC said it was difficult for barristers to stand up to judges when they don’t want to ruin their client’s case. ‘That is where the Bar Council can help… with channels to the senior judiciary… as well as calling it out in public.’

She added: ‘The positive is that this is being talked about,’ and said that the Bar gathering and publishing evidence was ‘the first step to addressing it’.

In a lecture in November, Gresham Professor of Law, Jo Delahunty QC, said sexual harassment at the Bar was rife and unacceptable. But she added that it was not a toxic profession, but a ‘challenging, vibrant, intellectually stimulating and highly rewarding sector’.

She stressed that there is ‘a group of senior men and women out there who want to help and are finding ways to do so’.

Delahunty called for open door policies and safe spaces in Inns, chambers and Bar school for discussion, and changes to the mandatory reporting rule. She told senior barristers ‘you have the power to act. Silence makes you complicit’.

The Bar Council is devising new training and resources for chambers to respond to and prevent bullying and harassment. The confidential helpline is 0800 169 2040.

Fewer women and ethnic minorities QCs were appointed as the number of applications and awards made for the badge of excellence overall fell this year.

From the 240 applications, 108 new Silks have been appointed, down from 119 last year.

Overall, the number of applications for for Silk fell from 272 last year – a drop of almost 12%.

Among the successful applicants were 30 women from the 55 who applied, and 13 new Silks from an ethnic minority background from the 30 who applied.

Last year, 32 out of the 50 female applicants were successful, together with 18 out of the 33 applicants who declared that they were from an ethnic minority background – the highest number ever to be appointed.

Nineteen applicants aged over 50 were appointed, compared to 21 last year. The youngest successful applicant is 37 years old and the oldest is 60.

Four solicitor advocates of the five who applied were appointed. Five solicitor advocates were appointed last year.

Congratulating those appointed, Sir Alex Allan, Chair of the Selection Panel, said: ‘We remain concerned that the number of female applicants remains comparatively low, but I am pleased that of those women who did apply, well over 50% were successful.’

He added: ‘I was also pleased to note that the number of BAME applicants appointed was in proportion to their representation amongst applicants, and amongst the relevant cohort of the profession.’

The new QCs will formally become Silks when they make their declaration before the Lord Chancellor on 11 March.

Protest action by junior barristers over legal aid fees has been postponed after the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) organised a second round of meetings to discuss the way forward.

Around 200 barristers of 0-12 years’ Call signed an open letter to CBA Chair, Chris Henley QC just before Christmas. The letter stated that they are in favour of direct action in protest over the recent amended reforms to the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which they said is ‘not fit for purpose’.

‘We are haemorrhaging talent… Junior juniors are voting with their feet,’ and ceasing legal aid work or quitting the Bar because of the poor fees, they warned.

The barrister behind the Twitter account @AbusedLawyer had organised a ‘day of action’ in January for barristers to protest outside the Ministry of Justice instead of attending court.

All proposed action was suspended after the CBA issued a statement telling members that further meetings will take place to discuss the way ahead. ‘At present we have no mandate for further action but the clear signs are that we need to consult the membership again,’ said Henley.

‘We do not rule out days of action to demonstrate just how frustrated the Bar is,’ he said, stressing that ‘unity is imperative’.

‘We need a clear objective and a strategy to deliver it. Fragmented action with no plan, as a small group seem to be advocating, will undermine us and takes us nowhere.’

Henley said the ‘unhappiness’ being publicly expressed by juniors was ‘unsurprising’ given the ‘fundamental flaw’ in the AGFS scheme. The cuts, he said, must be reversed to protect for the future a high quality, diverse and independent Bar.

The judge taking a whistleblowing test case on judicial employment rights to the Supreme Court has called for support from the Bar.

Claire Gilham, a district judge who worked at Warrington County Court, has launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website CrowdJustice to help finance her case and overturn an employment tribunal ruling that judges cannot be classed as workers and are therefore not entitled to the whistleblower protections when making disclosures in the public interest.

Gilham raised concerns about overwork, death threats, and the increased violence in courts due to the under-funded justice system. She believes her complaints should be covered by whistleblowing protections, but instead said they resulted in her being bullied, overworked and put under additional stress.

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled against her, but the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and the case will be heard later this year.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the government against an employment tribunal ruling that pension reforms discriminated against younger judges.

Government lawyers had argued that any age discrimination as a result of the changes was ‘justified’. But the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier tribunal ruling, in favour of the age discrimination claim brought by 226 members of the judiciary, including six High Court judges, that the changes meant they were treated ‘less favourably’ because of their age.

The first female judge elected to the International Criminal of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice were recognised in the 2019 New Year’s Honours List.

Dame Rosalyn Higgins, the first female judge elected to the ICJ, who served as its president from 2006-09, received a GBE for services to international law and justice.

Sir Richard Heaton, permanent secretary to the Ministry of Justice since 2015, was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.

Mark (Baron) Bridges, partner at law firm Farrer & Co, who has been solicitor to the Queen since 2002, was awarded the Royal Victorian Order, and Robert Heslett, former Law Society President and Chair of the Personal Support Unit, received a CBE for services to access to justice and litigants in person.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by ride-hailing service Uber against an employment tribunal ruling that its drivers are workers who are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage and to receive paid holiday. This was the third ruling in favour of the drivers following earlier victories in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The government announced that the overdue post-implementation review of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 would be further delayed until sometime in the new year. Meanwhile, in its response to the review, the Civil Justice Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, said the pro bono sector had been ‘overwhelmed’ since the cuts and called for ‘greater investment in early legal advice’ to help make legal aid provision more viable for practitioners, many of whom have ‘simply walked away’ due to low rates and ‘onerous’ contract requirements.

Harrison Burroughs, a final year law student at the University of Bristol, was the recipient of the inaugural £4,000 Guru Nanak Social Mobility Bar Scholarship. The award, provided by Mukhtiar Singh, one of the Bar Council’s #IAmTheBar Social Mobility Advocates, aims to improve social mobility and encourage a wider understanding of Sikh jurisprudence.

The Bar Council and independent media platform openDemocracy have published a series of videos and articles documenting the real-life effects of legal aid cuts. Found at www.opendemocracy.net/openjustice/voicesforjustice, they include interviews with Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill and Shadow Justice Minister Richard Burgon, as well as individuals and lawyers involved in cases regarding the Windrush scandal, homelessness and custody disputes.

The Ministry of Justice has announced increased legal aid fees for advocates in complex crown court cases.

Responding to a second consultation on proposals on the revised Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme, the Lord Chancellor David Gauke said the budget would rise by £23m – an extra £8m on top of the £15m previously announced.

The move came after an initial consultation to introduce fixed fees, which led to protest action by criminal barristers before the ministry agreed to increase spending by £15m.

Days before the announcement, five barristers had written to the Criminal Bar Association, stating that they would no longer accept cases with large volumes of written evidence, due to ‘derisory’ fees that mean they are paid below the minimum wage.

Announcing the move, Gauke also promised to bring forward a 1% increase on all fees. The money will be specifically targeted at junior advocates and the scheme will be reviewed after 18 months.

Gauke said: ‘Criminal defence advocates play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, and it is vital that their pay adequately reflects the work they do in a fair and sustainable way.’

Speaking at the Bar Council’s annual conference, the day after the announcement, Bar Chair Andrew Walker QC said that justice and the rule of law have been put at risk due to ‘political folly’ and ‘expediency’. He branded the legal aid cuts a ‘betrayal’ that present a ‘huge threat to access to justice’.

Welcoming the extra money announced as a ‘positive first step’, Richard Hoyle, Chair of the Young Barristers’ Committee, said at the conference: ‘Barristers from all across the Bar need to stand with our most junior practitioners at the publicly funded Bar as they try to find their feet, build their practices, and defend our most vital interests on little money and even less sleep.’

Meanwhile, two judicial heavyweights also warned about the impact of the legal aid cuts. The former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, told the BBC that things had gone ‘badly wrong’ over the past 20 years and said that ministers were taking the rule of law for granted and risked starving the justice system.

Sir Brian Leveson, Head of Criminal Justice, told the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association’s 70th anniversary dinner that without ‘new young blood’, suspects would face trials unrepresented. He cited Law Society research showing that the average age of duty solicitors was slightly under 50.

Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The wording of the rules governing the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the scheme), consistent with the proper operation of the scheme entitled and required the appellant trustee of the scheme to determine for itself, based on medical opinion as defined, whether a member of the scheme (the respondent) was suffering from a total incapacity or a partial incapacity. That entitled and required the trustee to determine whether he was suffering from any incapacity at all and the trustee was not bound by the conclusion of the respondent's former employer that he suffered from incapacity. The Chancery Division so ruled in allowing the trustee's appeal against a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman, concerning the trustee's refusal to award the respondent ill-health retirement benefits.

Criminal law – Mutual legal assistance. It was lawful for the Secretary of State to authorise mutual legal assistance to a foreign state in support of a criminal investigation which might lead to prosecution for offences which carried the death sentence in that state, without requiring an assurance that the prosecution would not seek the death sentence. Accordingly, the Divisional Court rejected each ground of the claimant's challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's decision and the subsequent transfer of materials, including personal data, to the US authorities concerning accusations of terrorism against her son.

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge had erred in the way she had dealt with the alleged contempts of the third party director, both in making a committal order against the director, and in striking out the claimant company and the director's possession application, and their defence to the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals of the director and the claimant and held that the claim and the counterclaim would be transferred for trial in front of a different judge.

Extradition – Prohibition on torture. The assurances offered in respect of each of the stages of the criminal proceedings which the appellant faced were satisfactory and appropriate in order to address the risk of ill-treatment arising from prison conditions and overcrowding in Romania. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed his appeal against orders for his extradition to Romania to stand trial for attempt to kidnap.

Will – Revocation. In circumstances where only a certified copy of the deceased's will had been found, the presumption in favour of the revocation of the will did not arise on the facts of the case, and there was insufficient evidence to find that the will had been revoked, as the claimant had contended. Accordingly, the Chancery Division ruled that it was appropriate to propound in favour of the certified copy of the will.